What would a President Sanders accomplish

[redstateblues]

With a Republican Senate and House. What would he do differently than Obama that would succeed?
Would he compromise or would he stick rigidly to his positions? There is a chance we can win back the senate- but the house - no way with the way districts have been gerrymandered.

[notadmblnd]

1. I can guarantee you that he would appoint at least 2 maybe 3 liberal Supreme Court judges

[Thinkingabout]

4. He would have to get them confirmed after appointing, so we need 60 Democrats in the Senate.

[notadmblnd]

5. HRC would also have to get 60 votes as would any Republian President appointing conservative judges

It'll happen.

[Thinkingabout]

7. Exactly, this is how the process works, it is more than the president nominating the judge.

[marym625]

2. He would stick to his morals and promises

Although there may be some reasonable compromise, there would be no assume kissing. In 2018, we take the House and Senate. Then we begin the process of healing and rebuilding

[Nite Owl]

3. Fight

Not negotiate bad deals and compromises.

[procon]

10. Get real.

The president is only one person. He's got to deal with the House and Senate members who all have their own agendas. While the Senate might flip back into Dem hands, thanks to gerrymandering the House will very likely remain in control of the GOP until the next census. The president doesn't write or vote on bills and whatever he thinks to try through executive action will almost certainly end up in court.

To do anything, he'll have to negotiate and make major concessions to even get any of his ideas past the inevitable Republican filibuster, let alone an up or down vote, so 'deal deals' or good, any legislation that makes to his desk for signing will bear little resemblance to his pre election promises.

[AgingAmerican]

14. The president has the bully pulpit

...which Obama refused to use.

Your defeatist scare tactics don't work.

[procon]

21. Yes, he has the bully pulpit

and he has used it, and like any other president he's up against the conflict driven press corp that out to excoriate him at every turn to gin up the 'news'. Don't overlook the court of public opinion either, that populist sentiment can flip in an instant. I tell you that all this is common history stuff that is readily certified as it has impacted all presidents. Don't be too quick to dismiss anything that isn't fluff and gloss because Sanders will be treated no differently. That's the reality we have and its not anything new so its pointless to ignore or pretend it won't happen again.

[AgingAmerican]

24. Defeatism: an attitude of accepting, expecting, or being resigned to defeat

Defeatism: acceptance of or resignation to the prospect of defeat.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. Faith and name-calling are very poor substitutes for evidence.

I have yet to see that word used on DU by someone who wasn't completely wrong, but didn't want to face the evidence, and was resorting to calling the people pointing it out to them names to avoid having to engage their brain.

There are none so dumb as those who won't think. And use of the word "defeatism" is almost exclusively a hallmark of that unhappy category.

[AgingAmerican]

28. Strawman

Watch the video. Learn.

[stevenleser]

55. That is not a strawman. That person in no way misconstrued your argument.

Your video does not show Bernie convincing a Republican member of congress to vote for Progressive legislation.

[AgingAmerican]

56. It's a strawman

Pure wishful thinking.

Watch the video.

[stevenleser]

57. Only if you don't know what a strawman means. That person got your argument exactly right. nt

[AgingAmerican]

58. A straw man is a common form of argument and is a fallacy based on false representation of

...a persons position.

Your reaction tells me you have not watched the video.

[stevenleser]

59. And they did not falsely represent your position at all. Your position involved faith & namecalling.

There is nothing in Sanders' record that suggests he can get Republicans to vote for progressive legislation. And you namecalled those of us who point that out as defeatist.

Hence, faith and namecalling.

[AgingAmerican]

60. Defeatism isn't a 'name'

It is the opposite of optimism. It is an accurate description of a persons position. Now you are pushing the straw man.

Watch the video, then tell me about 'faith'. If you refuse to watch the video, then you have no basis for your reasoning.

[stevenleser]

61. You are saying it is defeatism right? So folks saying it are, by implication, being defeatist.

No one is fooled by how you phrased it.

[AgingAmerican]

62. So you refuse to watch it

Cuz, you know, he can't win anyway....

Cuz, you know, there is no alternative to compromising with folks who never compromise...

Defeatism: the acceptance of defeat without struggle

Have a nice day!

[stevenleser]

63. Watch what? nt

[Nite Owl]

31. Exactly

we the people would would be included and negotiations wouldn't start where he thinks they should end so we lost more ground. He wouldn't be offering a tax cut like Obama did. Bernie would expect people up in arms because they would be included.

[Bobbie Jo]

64. Meh, pretty words. nt

[Lil Missy]

6. Unless he compromised, nothing. He would accomplish nothing. n/t

[AgingAmerican]

18. Psychopaths don't compromise

...as Obama proved.

[NCTraveler]

39. WTF? nt.

[AgingAmerican]

42. List the compromises we got from the GOP psychopaths

Thanks in advance.

[NCTraveler]

44. No thanks Dr. Frist. Nt

[AgingAmerican]

46. Gallup Poll Finds Democrats More Compassionate; Republicans More Psychopathic

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/gallup-poll-finds-democra_b_4683688.html

No list forthcoming, because nothing to list, because psychopaths won't compromise.

[NCTraveler]

50. You are very poorly educated on terms. Very poorly. nt.

[AgingAmerican]

65. Don't take my word for it

GOP: Malignant Narcissism as Political Philosophy

[sufrommich]

40. God, this forum has jumped the shark. nt

[NCTraveler]

41. Be nice.

Some don't age as well as the Clintons.

[AgingAmerican]

43. List the compromises the GOP gave

For all the shit they got from Obama.

Thanks

[Fumesucker]

8. Exactly, so why bother caring about it?

[Cheese Sandwich]

9. For him to even win the nomination it's going to have to be a huge popular uprising

that will include registering millions of new voters.

So if he does get elected it will be on a wave of popular support that would also sweep in a more progressive Congress.

[procon]

12. The House will stay stuffed with Republicans until 2020.

As long as they control so many states the GOP will continue to use gerrymandering to pack the House. Those election districts won't change until after the next census in 2020. They've rigged the vote so even if more Dems vote, because of how the districts are drawn, Republicans still win so its not very likely to produce any sort of wave in the House.

[Cheese Sandwich]

16. I still think voting has an impact on the US House races.

Even with gerrymandering. If we increase the Dem vote for Congress by 10% across the board, that would be enough to swing the whole thing. That's not intended as a factual statement but rather a simplified statement that serves as an illustration.

If we increase Dem turnout by 5% it can still make a major impact on the result in Congress.

Even if we thought we couldn't win, like you say, we should still try because hey you never know!

[procon]

22. That'd not how gerrymandering works.

Republican gerrymandering means red states pack registered Democratic voters into a very few districts, while Republicans are spread out in several districts such a way as to give them the most wins = more congressional seats for the GOP. That's why even though Democrats got more votes than Republicans in the 2010, 2012, and 2014 elections, the GOP won more districts to control the House.

The only way to affect the outcome is to have a surge of Dem voters actually move into each of those Republican districts and vote in huge numbers to shift the entire district from red to blue. Logistically, you can see how hard it would be to overcome the partisanship of gerrymandered districts until the next census changes it.

[Cheese Sandwich]

37. There are still alot of districts where the margin of victory is under 10%.

So in that range of 45% - 55% where a 5% increase in Dem vote combined with peeling off some Republicans, would swing the election.

There is still such a thing as a swing district, even with voters packed in certain CDs.

What you're saying is that the votes don't matter because of gerrymandering . That's incorrect. It makes things more difficult, but not impossible. In some places, yes truly impossible. A popular wave of support will can elect more favorable candidates. And it can also cause more close elections, making Republican reps maybe think twice about how they are going to vote in Congress.

[TM99]

11. He sure as hell would not shame

his own party members to support 'bipartisan' legislation that would benefit the corporations and screw over we, the people.

He would have fought for the public option and sure as hell would not have settled for HeritageCare.

He would not have had Rick Warren at his inauguration. He would have immediately begun work on dismantling DADT and DOMA.

He would and will be a solid stone against Republican obstructionism until the American people recognize that fact and give him a damned working congress so something can get done.

Consistently congress ranks lower in support than any other aspect of our government.

Unfortunately if we elect another 'bipartisan' Third Way'er like Clinton, we will just get more of the same. She will spout populist rhetoric on the campaign trail, way too many normally intelligent Democrats and left leaning Independents will buy it like they did Obama's empty rhetoric, and if she wins (and that is a big if!) she will govern the same way. She is even more neo-con that Obama so expect a lot more military action. She is even more enamored with Wall Street so expect more such trade agreements.

I would rather have had or to have four or eight years of stagnation and little change than four or eight more years of this kind of bullshit. No we are not better off after Bush. The bankers? Yup. The insurance companies? Yuppers! The MIC? Oh, hell yes, they are doing fabulously. Other corporations? Fuck yes, they are doing fabulously. Us not so much.

I won't vote for the lesser of two evils ever again.

[CharlotteVale]

19. +1 and he'd never use Social Security as a bargaining chip.

[TM99]

25. Yes!

And if he said in a campaign speech he would put on his soft shoes and be a supporter of labor and unions, I know he blood well would because his record reflects that not only in word but in deeds.

[TheKentuckian]

13. At least keep the crooks out of his own administration, cease dragnet surveillance, stop

destabilizing countries around the world, not give out drilling and fracking leases, stop droning around, no austerity efforts, no disastrous "free trade" deals, take Jamie and Lloyd off speed dial, no whipping for the Cronybus, no declarations of patriotism for torturers for a start.

What the fuck is Clinton going to be doing beneficial? She is going to get the TeaPubliKlans to do what in exchange for what while she presses interventionist nonsense and funnels wealth to her benefactors?

[Marr]

15. Let's find out.

I expect he'll do a lot better than a guy who adopts his opponents' position, then starts 'negotiating'.

[CharlotteVale]

20. +1

[LWolf]

45. THIS. +1

[AgingAmerican]

17. Defeatism

Why bother fighting, right? He's only one guy, right?

Defeatism: a way of thinking in which a person expects to lose or fail.

[MelungeonWoman]

48. But how can Bernie do anything against that Republican Senate?

The Repubs only have to defend 16 seats in the next election, how can we do anything against those overwhelming odds?

Defeatism!

[AgingAmerican]

49. It's called the 'Bully Pulpit".

It's called, not giving up before you try.

It's called not being a defeatist.

[Maedhros]

51. The entirety of the rationale behind support for Hillary is defeatism.

"There's no chance for us to elect a good President, so we have to nominate Hillary or the Republicans will win."

[AgingAmerican]

53. It isn't a very good way to win people over

Democrats are attracted by optimism, not defeatism

[AgingAmerican]

26. How to Solve America's Biggest Problems with Bernie Sanders!

Bernie is not a defeatist. Watch and learn.

[gordianot]

29. He will irritate Republicans to total irrationality.

It is a damn dirty job but someone has to do it. We are at war now with radicals for whom there is no hope. I hope Mr. Sanders has the fortitude.

[djean111]

30. So - why care if he is president, if no Democratic president could get anything done?

As a matter of fact, why listen to all the Hillary campaign claptrap, if, as you say, a Democratic president is helpless? Isn't Hillary a Democrat? Why wouldn't Hillary be the same as Sanders? When Democrats compromise with the GOP - we just get what the GOP wants, anyway.

[AgingAmerican]

32. They are defeatists

They believe in giving up without trying.

[djean111]

33. Actually they are just (subtly, they think :-)) trying to discourage Bernie's supporters.

Notice the premise is not Bernie or Hillary not being able to get anything done, just Bernie.
They want Bernie's supporters to give up without trying.

[AgingAmerican]

34. They have used defeatism to excuse Obama's failings

...for years now. All it has done is cede more and more power and policies to the extremist right wing.

Defeatism = failure.

[djean111]

35. Yes, defeatism is just the excuse. You are right, there.

[ScreamingMeemie]

36. So basically we're screwed with Sanders or Clinton or Chafee or whoever enters the race?

That's what you're saying, right?

Why bother then. Why are we here on DU if all is so very lost? Sorry, I'm gonna take my chances and support the candidates who best reflect my ideals.

[sufrommich]

38. Would it matter?

The election of Bernie Sanders as President of the United States would be an accomplishment in and of itself. I don't think he can do it,but lets not pretend it wouldn't be considered a sea change in American politics.

[Octafish]

47. Tax the rich and their corporations...

...as opposed to putting the lot of them into the tumbrils, which, historically, is what they were judged to deserve.

[JustAnotherGen]

52. RedStateBlues is correct

We'd have liberal SCOTUS appointees.

Or - we'd have a Holder or Obama appointment to the SCOTUS. Both would be more than qualified for the position. But - we could have that with anyone who wins with a D after their name . . . . really stick it to the IslamoFasIndieTeaPublicanBenghazi knuckle dragging mouth breathers.

Other than that - nothing. If we win the WH the job is to make that person a two term President where time will be on our side from a demographics perspective.

[Orsino]

54. He would achieve in proportion to his salesmanship...

...which would include his ability to shame the opposition.

More importantly, the electorate that proves itself able to put a Sanders into the White House will also be giving him a better Congress to work with. But you knew that.